fuck chrome and all its crap

franstam: no need to use expletives.

did help some more with the Swedish translation

bittin Thanks

frg_Away: Btw, thanks for the quick response to that Usenet post of mine about the compatibility indicator, good thing I just thought of accessing my Facebook today, lol

68.0 might be a good target too, which is what UXP currently uses

pandakekok9 Is just a test ballon to see what breaks. My sites are fine it seems. I am trying with 78 right now.

Btw. compression fix is Bug 1728996 as of today.

yeah, will try 78 as well once I get he new build

cool

I am building now. If it breaks will lower to 68. Waterfox recently switched to it.

to be clear, from that bug you're referring to the "compress" method in the Accept-Encoding header, not *compression* in general, right?

yes pref change as discussed. Will upload the patch later. In cleanup mode today to tie up a few loose ends.

wasn't that a Springsteen song that stevie complained was not played enough? Thought should have been the song at end of sopranos rather than don't stop believing?

78 seems to do the trick for now.

I have a question for you. Please disregard the fact it is coming from me.

According to the MPL 2.0 is a collection of patch files without being along side a base source bundle or any indication of what specific way to obtain the base source code the patches are based on considered in and of them selves to be the Source Code Form as defined in the license.

NewTobinParadigm: I can't parse that sentence.

Ok.. Someone makes changes to the codebase and they release a binary and a series of patch files and nothing else

Ah.

no indication where the base source code is what state it is from.. no commit no tag no nothing

You're asking if they have to release the entire codebase, or just the changes.

I see.

they never even mentioned it was under the MPL

just a repo with patch files saying Mozilla and some binaries

is that keeping with the obligations under the MPL

Ok, I understand the question now.

ye

I don't know enough about the MPL to answer it, but someone else here might.

The Source Code Form is defined as the form prefered for making modifications

Mozilla's opinion is Minified Javascript is not a valid Source Code Form because while it contains the entire source obviously it is not very easy for people to make changes in

So given that and the nature of patch files .. can patch files in and of them selves be considered the source code form in its entirety

I mean, Javascript _in general_ is not a form of code that I personally want to work with, but you know.

irrelevant

Right.

patch files are obviously not (usually) enough to reconstruct the complete source code.

yeah

Unless there are included "initial checkin" patch files that basically are a diff against nothing, from when the project started.

Which is how git repos for example usually work.

well no nothing just patch files

no orginal source no links to orginal source no tags no commits just patch files that HAPPEN to be sitting in a git repo

no indication it is MPL and no indication how to obtain the source code

I don't know the ins and outs of the MPL, but that doesn't *sound* to me like it would comply with any share-alike license.

it doesn't

but these people are arguing it does

If they're a small operation, it could just be ignorance.

name and shame

that's a clear license violation

as that is a basis for a notification of violation i sent to them in 2019 upon which the same person.. the only person doing any work made a very similar violation and I have terminated their grant to my code under Section 5.1 for repeat violations

not even a git/whatever commit ID?!

Ignorance while not actually an excuse is a valid reason for the FIRST time

tomman: no

just patch files

I'm not saying ignorance would make it ok; it just changes maybe how you want to correct them.

patch files that you're supposed to apply against... thin air, I guess

well i allowed them to upload the source code to make it obvious there WAS source code and got on with life

yeah, that won't fly

3 years later a similar issue happened

so I terminated their grant

unfortunately it's hard to get licenses enforced unless you're willing to get lawyers involved

and that's icky... not to say expensive as hell

and from what you're saying, guess you're dealing with one of those special snowflake cases

oh they have launched a war against me and got two different subreddits involved... people wishing death on me and everything

even though the person in question has complied.. eventually with the termination of the grant and has chosen not to do anything else quite yet.. he is letting any half-crazed passerby fight his battles for him

been going 12 days now

Leaving aside reputations and stuff, yeah, it's an icky situation

sadly this is The Internet™, where everybody feels entitled to an opinion

anyway thanks for your thoughts.. I won't take up anymore time since it IS offtopic to the channel and project.. But the next rights they violate might be yours

I would say "lawyer up", but alas, money

No comment.

;)

well the gnutards are always saying this is a SOCIAL PROBLEM

maybe we can keep it as such

eh?

to be fair, it is

people being dicks on the Internet is a social problem with many roots

but no fixes, unfortunately

man an i thought I was a half crazed antisocial lunitic.. you should see these people

I can't hold a candle in comparison

anyway thanks again!

peace.. or some sort of off brand peace like substitute